Reply to this 5 hr+ error teaching to be posted as possible on TWR
Torah Without Rabbinics . WordPress . com
Search – Melkizedeq Attack 9
MALKI ATTACK FROM UK
https://www.facebook.com/thewaybiblicalfellowship/ – FB by – John-Paul McMahon <email@example.com>
FROM: Matthew Nolan
>> DATE: November 2, 2015 at 7:11:38 AM PST
>> TO: yst
Rebut of – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 1 (of 3) 2.12.21 http://youtu.be/GLxd-wiR8jU – Introduction and a Common Misunderstanding of Galatians – 29/10/15 (England) – YouTube posted – 10/29/15 (America) by; an individual only Iding himself as “J.P.” from ‘the way biblical fellowship’.
Rebut of – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 2 (of 3) 2.23.33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vBed6Um-W8 fixed/edited to .31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7hCKE2egoE&feature=iv&src_vid=4vBed6Um-W8&annotation_id=annotation_3267184935 – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 2 – Scriptural Misunderstanding and Serious Error – 29/10/15
Rebut of – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 3 (of 3) 33.04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBSKkXfFx8A – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 3 – Heretical Statements and Conclusion – 29/10/15
As you can see this “J.P.” escalates from the benign to the unmasked attack to the ‘lashon harah’ of labeling character assassination statements.
ETA – Video Elapsed Time
Rebut of – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 1
1/ ETA :22 – Claiming a ‘thorough look’ but yet in error of his own conclusions just as 1Tm.1:7 reveals.
2/ 5:41 – He actually says – “we’re called to be kings & priests certainly” – what does he thinks that means? By Torah Num.3:12 – you cannot be a priest with out being Levite – yet it was not so to begin with Ex.19:5-6. The problem being formed is Ex.19:5-6 is a Nation ‘of’ Melkizedeq Priests VS Num.3:12 ‘instead’ (1 of many chances in Torah) is a Nation ‘with’ Levitical Priests – Big difference!
3/ 5:46 – Claiming that 1Ptr.2:9 ‘Royal Priesthood’ is a ‘leap’ – to the Melkizedeq Priesthood – even tho it is the same verbiage as Ex.19:5-6 – :6 ‘…a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation…’which also does not directly say ‘Melkizedeq Priesthood’ either even tho the only Priesthood at this point this could be speaking of is Melkizedeq. – Note ‘a nation of priests’ would be a ‘Priesthood’ – Read Prv.25:2
4/ 6:01 – “one of the most dangerous doctrines” – He is barely 5mins into this; and makes this leading conclusion statement at this point void of any facts? This reveals his ‘Levitical Mindset’ complete with the desire to protect what he thinks he knows; desiring to lead you to his ‘spoon-fed conclusion’.
5/ 6:28 – “J.P.” says MT (Melkizedeq Theology) says “the law of ‘God’ is done away with” – this is an all or nothing misleading statement. This does not recognize many direct Bible statements – Ezk.20:10-25, Acts 15:10, 2Cor.3:11, Heb.7:12, etc.
‘God’ (“J.P.’s” xtian word – has not recognized the Torah Covenant Name of Yahweh – Com’dt #3)
6/ 6:42 – “J.P.” says MT (Melkizedeq Theology) says “the law of ‘God’ is not really Torah” – This is a confused statement – Melkizedeq Law & Covenant is Torah so is Levitical Law – They are different for different reasons Melkizedeq for Obedience – Levitical for Dis-Obedience as Ezk.20:24-25 shows.
7/ 7:32 – “J.P.” says “there was a priesthood before Mt. Sinai” – Sighting Ex.19:24 but he does not realize the word kohen does not only or always mean ‘priest’ – That this comes from Ex.18 where Jethro advises Moses to set ‘captains’ of 10’s, 50’s & 100’s –
H3548 Kohen – ko-hane’
Active participle of H3547; literally one officiating, a priest; also (by courtesy) an acting priest (although a layman): – chief ruler, X own, priest, prince, principal officer.
8/ 9:05 – Then he does this board bush skip to Ex.32 even quoting Num.3:12 not savvy enough to realize that the “firstborn” are the Melkizedeq ones spoken of at Ex.19:5-6 from all tribes & that ‘instead’ is a change in Torah (among many) to the 1 tribe of Levites. See 2 – The problem being formed is Ex.19:5-6 is a Nation ‘of’ Melkizedeq Priests VS Num.3:12 is a Nation ‘with’ Levitical Priests – Big difference!
9/ 10:29 – Then he tries a stab at ‘after the order of Melkizedeq’ saying this only means in the same way as or in the same manner as (actually making the admission that the 1st born were originally the Melkizedeq Priests); not allowing ‘order’ can also mean ‘in the succession of’ which makes more sense or the possibility of both being in play which would fit the ‘block logic’ thinking of the Hebrew mind and the Prv.25:2 thoughts of YHWH.
Making the mistake of reading his English Bible and basing his errant conclusions on that English translation
H5921 –al – after – Properly the same as H5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural, often with prefix, or as conjugation with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications: – above, according to (-ly), after, (as) against, among, and, X as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, X both and, by (reason of), X had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-) on, over, than, through (-out), to, touching, X with.
10/ 11:35 – Then he appeals to a double speak song and dance flubdubbery of Heb.7:11 ‘after the order of Melkizedeq’ … ‘after the order of Aaron’. Not realizing he has just painted himself in a corner for Heb.7:12 speaks of the ‘change of the priesthood’ – not the likeness of or the manner of, but the priesthood itself. After all there are only 2 in the Bible the Levitical and the Melkizedeq; ergo Heb.7:11.
11/ 12:08 Then he does this amazing head spin razzle-dazzle; 1st correctly telling that Noah was a Melkizedeq Priest then turns to make this absurd statement that Melkizedeq was a priest after the order of Noah ??? And the Bible verse would be? Going on to demand that “order of does not and cannot ever mean in their priestly order” – which would be true for an ‘order of Noah’ conjecture but not so of the order of Melkizedeq. And what is more Melkizedeq is a designation title that Yahweh Himself uses (Ps.110, Heb.7:21).
12/ 12:47 Then he WOWs everyone using the amped words exegesis & eisegesis not realizing he consistently reads in his own thots and/or the ones he’s accepted that sport a Levitical mindset (eisegesis) not allowing the Bible to say what the Bible says the way the Bible says it. The British have a wonderful saying that fits this situation very well – Since “J. P.” is British, he will understand that he then is ‘hoisted on his own petard’.
This is only 12+ mins into J.P.’s 5hr+ error rant. We will deal with this and the balance of; on subsequent installments of ‘Melkizedeq Corner‘ to be posted here as they come available
As a observational side note; This guy ‘John Paul’ claims to champion the unchanged law of Torah and TaNaK – Yet – does not keep the unchanged law he champions. You can view this for yourselves on his/these videos – He has shaved his head and his beard. Most would recognize this as hypocrisy.
Note – His ‘John Paul’s’ version of ‘law’ mirrors the Rabbinic, Jewish, Messianic and Anti-missionary version of ‘law’ to include undivided&undiscerned Melkizedeq Law mixed with Levitical law, that includes the Christian Church – of which in opposition the Christian Church flatly rejects claiming ‘No Law Grace’ despite the fact that Yahweh says that Melkizedeq Covenant & Law is grace.
The following is Levitical law.
Lev.19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Ezk.44:20 Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.
Poll – to gather the hair in back by hand – cutting off the excess
Until then please see;
* Addendum YouTube Melchizedek Corner Video’s
Of Video 1
1 – 0 to 6:15 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcMXQgG42_Y